From KarbalaNews.Net (thanks to RG99 for the link; sorry; there is no English-language link): Iraqi Sunni murder incitement against Shiite leader al-Sistani, complete with a superimposed bullet on his forehead.
From KarbalaNews.Net (thanks to RG99 for the link; sorry; there is no English-language link): Iraqi Sunni murder incitement against Shiite leader al-Sistani, complete with a superimposed bullet on his forehead.
They have so much hatred in them, that even after hating Jews, Christians, polytheists, animists, Americans, Westerners, women, dogs, pigs, etc., they still have enough hatred left over to turn on each other. I'm not well informed on the Sunni vs. Shiite issues, but at the same time, I don't care. It doesn't make a difference in the long run, does it? It's just all about hating and killing, this Islam abomination. Even if they got rid of all the above groups, they'd turn on each other. Even if the Sunnis got rid of all Shiites, the Sunnis would find something else to turn on. Like rabid, feral hyenas.
feralee, it makes a tremendous difference. Despite the example of Khomeini's Iran, the Shia historically have separated political leadership from religious leadership. As each of the first 12 Imams were killed by jealous Sunni rivals, Shia developed a separation of religious authority from political authority in an effort to protect themselves. This continues to this day, as in the example of Ayatollah Sistani, who may not be our friend per se, but who is an opponent of religious meddling Iraq's new government, whether it be Shia or Sunni meddling. His guidance to the Shia of Iraq, to get off the streets and go home, has resulted in southern Iraq being peaceful, and in the Shia reaping the benefits of the reconstruction effort pouring into Iraq. This peaceful, wealthy Iraq with the only free press in the whole Arab world is home to Najaf and Kerbala, the most important sites in Shia, and the millions of Iranian Shia who make annual pilgrimages there are going to go home to Iraq and wonder why it can't be the same there. Assassinating Sistani would be much like assassinating the Pope, and could possibly plunge Iraq into a civil war that would result in three former Iraqi states, at least one of them permanently a failed state. That is, of course, what desperate murderers like Zarqawi want to achieve with his assassination.
If nothing else, feralee, there are tens of thousands of US and allied troops and workers in the Shia regions of Iraq. Think of their safety before you say something as simple-minded as "it doesn't make a difference." This is going to be a long, long conflict, take your allies where you can find them.
Shia vs sunni is nothing new. But the west, IMHO, has learnt its lessons in trying to exploit sectarian dvisions within islam to weaken the enemy coz in the long run it backfires. Which is why US action in Iraq, zealously guarding against sectarian targetting of sunnis by shias and kurds is commendable. How easy it would be for the US action in Iraq, a la the operation in Afghanistan, to use Kurdish peshmerga militias and bands of shia hotheads against the sunni insurgent strongholds? That they've resisted this myopic divisive tactic is praiseworthy!
Ideally, post US iraq would be a place where sectarian differences would matter little in the socio-political arena. Ideally, that is.
"Even if the Sunnis got rid of all Shiites, the Sunnis would find something else to turn on. Like rabid, feral hyenas."
I believe that feralee is essentially correct. The inter-denominational struggle is not strategically important. The enemy is Islam.
Islam must be fought with, humiliated, and finally eradicated.
That it is why it is important that American troops have begun to "desacrate" the mosques in Falujah by going in and slaughtering the terrorists inside.
Once the Western powers begin to treat the Muslim "holy" sites like the putrid piss holes that they are, the jig will be up for the whole Mohammaden racket.
Shiite murders in Canada,here's today's link to a murder right next to Detroit and it's all about plans for a new Mosque for practising the tolerance and peace within the Quran and Islam.
Please note how once again the violence and backlash stimulates the "Denial" and "Paranoia"
as to distance Muslims and Islam from the root cause of the murder.
The BBC has posted a news item about the Dutch and now portrays the Muslims as the victims and even the video interview of a Dutch Politician indicates that non-Muslims must work towards avoiding behaviour that incites Muslims to
violence as in the Theo van Gogh case.
The grusome murder which has all the traits of a Muhammedian style killing from the Quran,has shocked non-Muslims and no doubt CAIR will call for calm and not to assign blame and create
Islamophobic backlash.
It is very normal to experience the "Well-founded" types of fear and this is part of the inner survival instinct,for Islamic leaders to dismiss the real threat to Canada's moral fabric is a statement in itself and a portent to what lies ahead for our children that see this babaric act of terrorism.
The Canadian news stations showed a few Muslim females leaving a Mosque and emoting for the camera with the usual rant that "Why did this happen in Canada" and "Canadians should be ashamed".
Muslims should be ashamed and their silence to the Police on dangerous Muslims in their Mosques is how these murders are allowed to be acted out before any intrevention.
* If you read the whole story you'll see how this decent peaceful follower of Islam waited until after Ramadan to slit the throat of the "Bad" Muslim that offended Allah.
http://www.canada.com/windsor/windsorstar/index.html
For a long time Sunni Arabs have dominated the area. What is wrong with their being on the receiving end, at long last? Why should the oil of Kirkuk and Mosul, historically part of Kurdistan (and even further south -- where was that Kurd, that Saladin fellow, from anyway? Oh yes, Tikrit) continue to fund the Sunni Arabs, or Arabs at all, who looked with indifference or glee at the massacres of the Kurds by Saddam Hussein, without a syllable of protest from any member of the Arab League? Why should it not go, all of it, to support Kurdistan? And what about those Shi'a in the south? Why should they not have their moment in the sun, after suffering for decades under Sunni rule?
And why is it admirable for the United States to have expended the lives of American soldiers, and American money, in an idiotic attempt to cajole the Sunnis into voting? Who cares if they vote or not? If they don't vote, tough. Are they to be bribed, and American soldiers, including the 40% who are citizen-soldiers and who, while admirably willing and able to help subdue and harm the enemy, are becoming less and less able to sustain the fiction that "Iraq is just like Occupied Japan and Occupied Germany" (but Nazism, and Japanese Kodo, were completely discredited -- Islam, far from being discredited, is now free from the admittedly papier-mache shackles of Ba'athism), and a demoralized citizen-soldiery is not a good idea. It is especially not a good idea if one understand that this war, not against "terrorism," but against all the instruments of the JIhad, will continue indefinitely, perhaps forever, and will if successful manage to contain Islam but not destroy it. And finally, it is not Iraq, nor the MIddle East, but Europe that is the central battlefield, and Iraq is now, as a misallocation of men, materiel, money, and attention, getting in the way. It was fine to invade, fine to get rid of Saddam Hussein, fine to look for WMD projects, fine to end those projects, fine to destroy the hundreds of thousands of tons -- in other words, hundreds of millions of pounds -- of all kinds of weaponry that could threaten Infidels everywhere. It is not fine to remain in Iraq after the elections. It is not fine to prevent the Sunni and Shi'a from being at each others' throats.
Divide and conquer. The point is -- we need not divide. They are divided. Just stand back, and stop propping up the world of Islam, with foreign aid, do-good projects, acting as umpire willing to be slugged, or stabbed, by both sides.
Let them at it. The Iran-Iraq War should have gone on forever. This proxy war, of Sunni and Shi'a, could be a reasonable substitute. And if one can pick off non-Arab populations -- Kurds and Berbers come to mind, and post-Khomeini Iranians -- and remind them that Islam has been a vehicle for Arab imperialism, the most successful and complete (because it attempted to efface all non-Arab, pre-Islamic civilizational memories) in history.
Muslims want an ideological struggle? As Glenn Headly says to Michael Caine and Steve Martin at the end of "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels" -- "go get 'em, boys!"
Hey Montfort,
about your comment,
Once the Western powers begin to treat the Muslim "holy" sites like the putrid piss holes that they are, the jig will be up for the whole Mohammaden racket.
When more Christian churches get blown up in Iraq and Pakistan and other countries (and they already have) don't be too surprised.
Thank you for admitting that your side does that kind of thing, buddy. You will notice that attacks on Your holy sites almost Never happen- except when your buddies are hiding within them, using a supposedly sacred site for a shield.
All bets have been off since Your buddies used the Church in Bethlehem for their stupidities.
HUGH SAYS:
"Divide and conquer. The point is -- we need not divide. They are divided. Just stand back, and stop propping up the world of Islam. . ."
Yes, YES, YES!!! They are nothing, if not parasites in need of a host!
FERALEE SAYS:
"They have so much hatred in them, that even after hating Jews, Christians, polytheists, animists, Americans, Westerners, women, dogs, pigs, etc., they still have enough hatred left over to turn on each other."
Right on, feralee. They are classic nihilists. Hatred and destruction consume them. Joy and productivity are things they can't even conceive of. If we only had the guts to do what Hugh says, and withdraw ALL our support, the parasites would no longer be a problem; they'd just melt into a puddle, like the Wicked Witch of the West.
Dear U R ALL RETORTS (sp?)
Come on, just start calling for the death of all non-Muslims, and get it off your chest.
Confession is good for the soul.
Meanwhile-
The Sunni's created the opposing sect of the Shia (Shi'ites) when they killed the cousin (and son-in-law) of Mohammed, named Ali (considered the First Imam), and his closest followers, in order to steal the Koranic transmission from the close family, who, like a Mafia clan, wanted to control the power of the faith.
The Sunni's were determined to have that Absolute power for themselves, declaring that is should be more than just a 'near-relatives' religious leadership. They wanted distant family members, etc., in on the largesse, too. (Caravan plunder, sacking-of-cities booty, etc.)
The two groups (gangs, in normal parlance) have been at one another's throats (literally) ever since. (The Shia [Shi'ites] have split in two on their own, also, into the 'Twelver'- main "Shia"- and 'Sevener' or "Ismailite" sects. 12 imams vs 7 imams, repectively. It's all so compicated and unsavory that only a dedicated medievalist even cares byond this point...)
"Supporting one against the other" is the kind of blunt, shgort-sighted tactical error that got us the Taliban. (When the Soviets, who were quasi-orthodox Christians at their core, should never have been opposed by using the even-more-deadly tool of the Afghan/Arab mujahadeen... a true folly of the Reagan era naivete. This C.I.A. trained bunch of maniacs then needed to be wiped out with even greater cost.
Best to let the Iraqi Sunni's and Shia (Shi''ites) fight to the death among themselves once "free" elections are held, while allowing our only real friends, the Kurds in the North, to secede and finally have a free Kurdish homeland. After decades of misuse and betrayal by the West, they are still not utterly disgusted with our realpolitik ruthlessness (viz- Henry Kissinger's abandoning of their hopes for freedom that we promised them in the 1970's).
We can then shift the troops to other fronts, and let the rest of Iraq's warring tribes slaughter themself, contained, and prevented from acquiring new WMD's.
Maybe the pain will bring enough of the people there to their senses, and hopefully encourage them to abandon dead-end Islam for an open, secular democratic future. (A thing parodied by Saddam Hussein's 'secular' tyranny.)
We have trained too many enemies on how to kill us with our own tools. Time to fight a wiser war.
P.S.
Typing too fast, I left a phrase out...
The paragraph above should read:
"The Sunni's created the opposing sect ...when they killed HUSAIN THE SON OF the cousin (and son-in-law) of Mohammad, Ali (considered the first Imam) ..."
There are so many killings and so much turmoil, it's easy to get the names mixed up.
The Shia most devout commemorate this holy martydom of Husain by marching down the streets on the anniversary and whipping themselves bloody.
It was all similar to the Popes warring in the middle ages, when their were "anti-Popes" and competing simultaneous Popes.
Give me Tom Paine any day.
I've argued here before, and will again now argue that it is in our interest to ally ourselves with Sunnis in their zeal to attact Shi'ites; the whole purpose of that being to have one gang of moslems take on another, which is a net gain for us in the Wset, but more importantly, to assist the Sunnis in pinning the blame for their actions on the West; to enrage the Shi'ites to provoke them into attacking the West, thereby provoking a reasoned response; and that, one can only hope, will enflame the minds of fellow Moslems, Sunnis, who will in turn attack us again. I've agrued that this is very feasible in cities such as Sophia, and a place where such organized activity is not of any interest to local authorities, which it might be in Western nations.
I am not here to help the Islamic world fit into the 21st century. I'm here to do my part to ensure that Islam does not see the 22nd. That takes some Machiavellian talents, which are easy to develope when the need arises, and especialy within the milieu of clandestine organizations, which we could easily form if we had greater numbers and further out-reach into our communities.
Do we want to stir up trouble in which our soldiers, American, English, Dutch, et c. are targetted? Of course not. The point of increasing intra-Moslem violence is to destroy the power Islam has over its populations. Let's stir up the trouble and let them take the consequences of involving us after the fact. When they finally provoke our nations, then they stand a chance of surviving in spite of themselves. Islam is suicidal. It is up to us to break them before they all die and leave the world an impossible public health problem: over a billion rotting bodies bloating in the sunlight. Organize now to save further trouble in the future. Talk to Sunnis.
As far as reasoning with these people, look at the number of the 12 Imams who were "martyrs." I think it's eleven. But the truth is likely not so many, but that to maintain the fiction of martyrdom, some of those old men who were "poisoned" probably died of any number of other causes. It remains, though in the Shi'ite mythology that they were martyred, and that is the highest goal for the average self-flagellating, howling savage in any of the pilgrimmages to the "holy" cities of Karbala and Najaf, holy only because Ali and his sons might have been buried there at some time. What makes them holy cities to us? Look at them. They're filthy, fly-blown sh*t-holes. We have nothing to take from them, nothing to give. Let them fight it out till the survivors are exhausted and begging for our intervention. Then make the effort to save the women and children. The rest can be martyrs all they like. they are savages, and there is no hope of reasoning with them. they have to be beaten to the dust till they say, not us, but till they say the end has come.
We should encourage the Moslem divisions to our best abilities. Provoke them. Make them attack us. Yes, Europe is the key now, but let's take everything we can get. Every angry Moslem bent on violence is my ally. I want more of them. i'lldo what i can to upset them.
What I can't do, at this time, is respond to mail through my private line. I appologize for any feeling os slight you may have. I'm trying to send mail, but it simply will not go more than one time in ten. Thank you for your patience and understanding.
No, I'm not suggesting anyone pay a Moroccan a few pounds to toss a brick through a Shi'ite store window, a brick with a message in Dutch slandering Moslems generally. Hey, for shame.
What's the Dutch word for....
Sonofwalker,
The Dutch word is "geiteneuker".
Translatable to something like "sheepshagger" in England English. Or "goathumper" in American.
One of the humorous little words the murdered Theo Van Gogh used to prick the thin-skin of his inarticulate (except with a butcher knife and bullets) Muslim opponents.
On the Islamic websites cheerfully discussing his slaughter, they now mistranslate it in a too-literal form as "goatf*cker"- strictly in a polemical move to infuriate the naive (which seems to be most everybody online at these zones of lockstep vendetta), but that would be like taking the quaint English expression "Balls!" and translating it as "Human testicles!", which somehow misses the sonorous comedy of the language and the lightness of its intent.
But then there is only one jokebook in all of Islam.
Need I mention its title?
profitsbeard said “The Dutch word is "geiteneuker".
Translatable to something like "sheepshagger" in England English. Or "goathumper" in American.
One of the humorous little words the murdered Theo Van Gogh used to prick the thin-skin of his inarticulate (except with a butcher knife and bullets) Muslim opponents.”
Mr van Gogh gave a reason for calling muslims such a vulgar name, and I quote Mr. van Gogh:
"Why would I not be allowed to call a Muslim a goat f**ker? First of all, Ayatollah Khomeini himself has once said that when the wife has her period, the husband is allowed to use a goat for the time being. Second, Morocan youths are shouting "whore" at Dutch girls on the street every day. And that we do have to allow? What strange kind of tolerance is that?"
The Shia and sunni figths are being very important in Pakistan and in Iraq, and Ben Laden is happy with this, but Iran is protecting him, and my question is why? if he had killed or ordered to kill shiites?, greetings
About the geiteneukeren--the Muslims Moses was a prophet, but the Old Testament is as anti-bestiality as it is anti-homosexuality (both capital crimes; if you can get two or more witnesses). Then again, they seem to think Moses was the uncle of Jesus as well--never mind the bit about roughly a millennium and a half between.
Profitsbeard: in your catalogue of sects, you forgot the Zai'di Shi'ites, who are most numerous in northern Yemen.
Kepha1
Believe me, I know I forgot a host of splinter groups within the segment of Islam called the minority Shia (Shi'ites). There are so many more sub-sects, from varieties of Sufis to newer jihadist offshoots popping up like toadstools around the globe (Indonesia, etc.) that I didn't want to become too involved in all of the inner-clashes by name.
Just remind that there is a conflict within Islam (they have been killing Sufis off an on for centuries) that slows their planetary theocratic tyranny, a little, on its merry way.
Helped by suckers from George W. ("It's a religion of peace") Bush to the entire governing structure of the EU, much of Canada's welcoming naive (didn't a Muslim guy slaughter a bunch of infidel women college students a decade or so ago... and the story was relatively unreported), and a lot of anti-colonial Africa.
The Godfather- Part 4 would be an apt subtitle for The Koran.
Except that the music isn't as good.
profitsbeard:
George W. may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I don't think he's the dullest either. Some time down the road he may be recognized for the political bravery he exhibited defying the Saudis by invading Iraq, pushing the Palestinians to accept the two state solution and trying to ensure the survival of Israel. Calling a spade a spade in this case would only provide fuel for the useful idiots who really believe the "religion of peace" blather.
waterdragon52
Whether GWB is any smarter than he comes across, one can only hope he has some advisers who are saying: "Call it a 'religion of peace' for realpolitik reasons until we can weaken them further."
But then, to paraphrase Nietzsche:
"You distort someone by assuming they are smarter than they appear."
But we can hope.
And, I agree, he isn't a complete pussyfooter.
"You distort someone by assuming they are smarter than they appear."
I like that. Good description of kerry and the Blue states.
Bush is moving, as the shakedown of liberal, democratic presidential appointees to the Intelligence agencies shows. I just wish he would move Faster.